The mayor of Osaka has ordered a ban on tattoos amongst city employees, with any found to have them to be either fired or forced to remove them, after the outrageous discovery that a public employee had a tattoo and that the city was not even able to sack him for it.

Osaka mayor and former prefectural governor Tooru Hashimoto has instructed the city bureaucracy to draw up rules banning public employees from having tattoos.

The decision was prompted by an incident in which a carer at a child-care facility showed his tattoo to young children there. He received a two month suspension, and was ordered only ever to wear long-sleeved shirts.

However, disgusted at finding that they could not sack him outright just for having a tattoo, the mayor has instead ordered new rules – “if we can’t sack them just for having tattoos, then at least we can make rules to force them to have them removed.”

The city does not currently ban employees from having tattoos, a state of affairs which outrages the mayor: “is there any profession apart from civil servant where regular employees can have tattoos?”

Mayor Hashimoto, a former lawyer and TV celebrity, has proven popular in right-wing circles for his efforts to curb the vast and heavily coddled civil service and mini-welfare state Osaka has built up for itself (most recently for his gleeful attacks on city bus-drivers whose $91,000 salaries were found to be $20,000 higher than those in the private sector).

However, his authoritarian tendencies have made him a hate figure on the left, with his obsession with forcing teachers to worship the national flag a particular sticking point – leftists denounce this as “Hashism” (pronounced and spelt similarly to “fascism” in Japanese), and after his 2011 remarks that “dictatorship is the most important thing in Japanese politics today,” it is not hard to see why.

Most of his actual policies revolve around curbing government expenditure and his pet project of trying to unify Osaka city with Osaka prefecture and make the resultant streamlined metropolitan government Japan’s sub-capital.

His other less salubrious reform proposals include legalising casinos and reinstating Osaka’s brothel district under government sponsorship – although paradoxically he is a big opponent of fictional sex, having called for manga censorship on the grounds that “freedom of expression is not an absolute.”

Online, there is the usual lack of sympathy for the vile deviants who dare to ink their bodies and then expect to be able to work for a living:

“Keep at it! It makes no sense to have public employees who have tattoos!”

“Osaka civil servants can get away with anything, can’t they?”

“They should not be employing people with tattoos in the first place. That’s the real issue.”

“American soldiers and police often have tattoos. If Japan just copies America, it should be OK to have them?”

“Just about every US marine seems to have them.”

“They’re just told to get them so it is easier to identify their bodies.”

“That’s because they are democratic.”

“Stop quibbling. They are all like that.”

“The JSDF strictly prohibits tattoos.”

“Can’t he just fire them all?”

“What difference does it make if they erase them anyway…”

“Why would a public employee have a tattoo anyway?”

“There are lots of professions other than public servants where you see people with tattoos. You used to get them all the time with entertainment workers, construction labourers, taxi drivers and fishermen. Lately a lot of IT types get them too, and quite a few caregivers. You also see nurses with them. Source: me, who is a doctor.”

“Well, I don’t really see a problem if you aren’t flashing them at the pool or beach or something.”

“I know a civil servant who got herself inked with no problems.”

“The media reports suggest this whole incident was less about his tattoo and more about the suspicion he was intimidating a kid and sexually harassing a coworker.”

“According to those reports this guy was just acting like some yakuza…”

“I’m amazed Osaka employed someone with a tattoo. That city has too much freedom.”

“People with tattoos should not expect to get any sort of real job.”

“You can’t even get into Disneyland with a tattoo.”

“Why does Hashimoto alway respond so quickly to these odd little incidents…”

“Hashimoto haters will leap to protect any old thug, it seems.”

“So all city employees will be subjected to annual naked body searches now?”

“Does this guy really think nobody working in the private sector has tattoos?”

“I want to know why tattoos are NG but makeup is OK. If it really comes down to whether you can remove it, it’s a private matter which hardly matters at the workplace.”

“I don’t have one, but I don’t see what’s so wrong with tattoos.”

“All you American fools who think tattoos are cool, would you elect a president with a tattoo on his face?”

“Fire him. Public opinion supports it. Any fool with a tattoo should be fired.”

“Lots of people who have tattoos are AIDS carriers!”

“Stop employing yakuza, Osaka.”

“Next they should ban people from dyeing their hair.”

“As expected of the Japanese Johannesburg.”

“It’s shameful that these people should be employed by the government. They shouldn’t even be able to apply. Filth who choose the path of the outlaw should walk that path.”

“This is Japan! We don’t need to adopt foreign standards. In Japan, anyone with a tattoo is a hoodlum. They should not be working for the state. It doesn’t matter if they are good people, it’s bad!”

“If this is really discrimination, then so is stopping people with tattoos from entering public baths and gyms!”

“Hashimoto should know better, being from show business. The days when tattoos were just to intimidate people are gone, now they are a fashionable form of self expression. And this, coming from a lawyer who once shoced people with the fact he had dyed his hair? I understand the need for restraint, but a ban is going too far.”

“Whose side are you on!?”

“I’m on the side which thinks forcing people into conformity is suspect. And not just when it comes to tattoos…”

“You’re the suspect one!”

“No decent person would get a tattoo.”

“That is rather like saying ‘no decent person would post on 2ch,’ now isn’t it?”

It’s rather laughable that Japanese don’t understand their own history that tattoos dated back before the meji era and before and it wasn’t just yakuza who had them either. During those times it was considered an art form in some sectors. If I was correct didn’t some of bodyguards of the shougun and other aristrocrats have tattoo markings to identify what clan they were from and which house they served?

I know tattoos are a yakuza symbol, but they’ll never evolve past that if you encourage an unrational fear of them. Yakuza will get them BECAUSE of fear. Imagine if in America the government said that any state worker could not wear gang colors because they might be gangstas. Red polo? Nice try you Blood, take it off. Blue Jeans? We don’t hire Crips.

Bullshit, yes, but that’s how Japan rolls when it comes to tattoos, and always have. It’s often banned in public places where you show skin. Tattoos are a sign of involvement with the Yakuza, or other criminal gangs, only because those criminals have HUGE tattoos, often as a sign of which gang they belong to. It’s like a ritual for them. Sometimes covering the whole body. It’s a shame for us ordinary folks, since tattoos are a superb way of putting art on your body, but what can you do? The ‘mafia’ destroyed it for everyone over there. Only rockstars get away with it – most of the time at least.

Seriously at my first job, the store was run by conservative superchristians and even they only made people cover up their tattoos. This whole super conformity thing Japan has going on is really disconcerting, you know? No one ever made progress by being just like everyone else.

Tatoos go way back before even the word “yakuza” was invented.
Anyone who supports that this should be illigal to ahve tatoos should be fined for the crime of negative discrimination.
what happened to:
Do not judge a book by its cover?

“American soldiers and police often have tattoos. If Japan just copies America, it should be OK to have them?”
In most cases, we’re not even permitted to join the military with a visible tattoo. Also, if it is spotted during a military physical(assuming it was kept hidden), the person would be prompted to have the tattoo removed or they would flat out be rejected to be in the military.
This is all if the tattoo is in any way offensive or is ‘violent’… Tattoos that are there as a way of remembrance of a loved one, self expression, etc I believe should be allowed(to a certain extent).

“I’m amazed Osaka employed someone with a tattoo. That city has too much freedom.”

Man and here I though my country was seriously conservative. This is down right embarrassing; to think these are the same people responsible for many technical wonders, yet there demeanor seems to be stuck somewhere in the Fascist years. I know never to trust some of the comment posted here as they are chosen out of shock value rather than quality, but damn if some of these people don’t have a socially-backwards mentality. Hey Japan, how about you judge someone by their character rather than their ink.

“You can’t even get into Disneyland with a tattoo.”
That’s just depressing.

Oh Japan…
The “what would they think about me?” it’s sooooo damn important in your culture. Start living more YOUR life and care less about what other thinks about it.
A tatoo doesn’t define who you are.

I don’t like tatoos, visible or not they show the person has sold out to let them be taken over by coursion to do and allow bad things to happen around them. I don’t like piercings either, same reason. Once you do that, you will sell your family out for a cigarette.

Those in power either can not actually fix society’s problems, or are too close to those causing it. So they go to cheap “Moralism” to pretend they have power/authority, to “Prove” they are doing something.

The banning of tattoos is retarded!
Im NOT an american, im a female, with tattoos, which can be hidden under clothing. This doesnt make me a ‘gangster’. The tattoos are personal to me and not offensive in any way. Im a decent person, with a very good professional medical job! If professionals dont want tattoos on show at their work just simply cover them up with clothes or makeup! Just because people have tattoos, they shouldnt be discriminated against by their looks. Often is the case that tattooed people are just as nice/decent as non tattooed people, if not MORE decent!

i love anime
i love manga
i love the history of japan and many other places

but the people in japan can go fuck themselves as i am sick and tired of hearing this bullshit that the government and the people are doing….if you cant look at a person for who they are and what they do rather then what they look like…i hope you burn in hell.

But to get those things you love, you need people like the Japanese. Yes, there are strips that aren’t manga and yes there are animations that aren’t anime and they mostly suck. Only Japan (and to a lesser extent Korea) manages to deliver. So rather than thinking ‘what is wrong with those crazy fascist Japanese *&%$s’ you should first try to empathise with them more. You will find once you see things in context that there are reasons behind everything. And if you in the process become a little bit more Japanese, maybe you’ll be better for it.

-All workers in the buisness world who have tattoos must be fired.
-All people with tattoos are forbidden from entering public places without indetification papers.
-All people with tattoos are forbidden from phisical contact with non-tattooed people.
-Marriage betveen tattooed and non-tattooed people is forbidden by law.
-All people with tattooes are to be delivered into concentrationcamps across Japan.
-All tatooed people outside such camps will be shot on sight…

This is completely fascist! Having a phobia of tattoos is irrational and in most cases unjustified but to ban anyone with a tattoo from working? WTF? And then these ridiculous comments about people with them being “Filth who choose the path of the outlaw” and having aids? Please for the sake of non existing god I hope they’re trolling!

Jeez and I thought America was too socially conservative! It seems like the right wingers there want to go back to the feudal ages. “Forcing teachers to worship the national flag” that kind of forced indoctrination sound terrifying.

“religion is still equated to morality in the public mind”
Relating religion to morality kinda makes sense to me; the hilarious thing is just that the Americans do it the wrong way round. There are people who seriously consider Christians to be more morally trustworthy than Atheists. That blows my mind, because in general I’d rather trust someone who doesn’t, say, steal from and murder people because he/she honestly thinks it’s bad, not just because he/she fears punishment in the afterlife, but eh…

Er, no. It’s perfectly legal for an atheist to run for office and be elected. The constitution specifically says that there can be no religious test (requiring someone have a religion constitutes such a test) for public office. The political climate, however, makes it damn near impossible for an atheist to get the needed votes to get elected (religion is still equated to morality in the public mind).

“All you American fools who think tattoos are cool, would you elect a president with a tattoo on his face?”

Yes, yes I would. Because at least then we’d know his personality quirks, instead of voting in another political puppet who’s intention is to line his pockets.

Seriously though, for Japan to have such horribly elitist jerks in office, pushing bills that criminalize people over art, with anti-weapon laws so you can’t easily remove them from office by force, it really just makes no sense. If a government doesn’t respect its people, it should at least fear revolution.

they have elitest assholes in office because elitest but powerless and dickless fucks like the one that made that comment don’t even step out the door to vote. hence, they talk shit and bitch online, then take it up the ass IRL.

i dont mind if people have tatoos, thats what they like and thats their problem

tatoos have a meaning and represent something, this generation seems to not know, and for that reason most people like them because they think its cool or pretty or whatever, or my friend or this person i adore has one i want too reasoning…

i do consider that an employee of the government or something public should not have a tatoo thats easy to see with their uniform or clothes, elsewhere is ok

sadly for japan tatoos mean yakuza, and even if they arent yakuza they will be categorized as so

Why? Why shouldn’t a “high-ranking” employee have a visible tattoo? Because it’s “unprofessional?” Because they OBVIOUSLY wouldn’t be able to get their job done better than someone who doesn’t have a visible tattoo? No, it just doesn’t work that way.

Fuck you, guy. If something meant to decorate the human body makes you think they can’t do their job, then you just told every woman who has pierced ears to fuck off and get back in the kitchen.

Also, “liking” is not a problem. It’s a choice.

You’re not a part of the solution, you’re blatantly part of the problem. It’s people like you that keep well-meaning people that live individual lives from getting jobs that pay well.

It’s not a 100% thing, but I’m pretty sure he wouldn’t be able to get away with half of that stuff in a western country. Then again, look at that electro-dildo law in Virginia–it seems certain political ideologues are quite willing to give up freedom and liberty in pursuit of some narrow idea of morality.

This kind of tyrannical behavior being allowed, and even supported, is a bad sign for democracy in Japan. I can only hope the people of Osaka vote him and his cronies out next election, as I hope (perhaps in vain) that Ishihara and his ilk get thrown out of Tokyo politics.

This is what you get from a nation with the majority of the populace being old fogies. The politicians are just catering to the majority, which is incidentally, what they are suppose to do.
What might seem as something totally anal retentive to the younger generation or foreign observers might have it’s roots in perfectly logical reasoning (organized crime in this case). Unfortunately, because of this the younger generation (Which has little political sway due to earlier stated population issue.) is going to have to be saddled with policies that should have not appeared at all in this day and age.

tattoos banzai! i love my tat and if i was told i had to have it removed id simply refuse with all courtesy at hand to prove that not all people with tats are hoodlums and such. besides my tats pretty slick if i say so myself.

How would have a face tattoo be indicative of someone’s qualifications for being a president? It wouldn’t, the most you could do is speculate or make projections but you can’t determine much about a persons intellect, morality, or achievements solely on the grounds of them have a facial tattoo. Unless it was a tattoo that explicitly stated something or symbolized something, but even in that case that doesn’t tell you everything about a person. I know a guy who is extremely intelligent and yet has three face tattoos, so your statement “only idiots have tattoos on their face” is not only false, but it’s a logical fallacy and you used faulty reasoning to come to your determination. You need to put down the yaoi and pick up a book on logic and critical thinking.

A lot of people believe that facial tattoos are indicative of poor judgment. Thus they tend not to trust such people with things that require good judgment. Since most people who have good judgment (or at least think they have it and want others to know about it) will avoid it in part because of that reason, this results in a people with poor judgment to be the ones most often to get a facial tattoo.

This is despite the fact that the existence of the tattoo itself has zilch to do with it. It could just as easily be the other way around – if people happened to consider the lack of facial tattoos to be a sign of poor judgment, then it would become mostly true simply because people believed it. Or people could stop caring, and it would no longer be a sign of anything. I’m not sure whether to call this a self-fulfilling prophecy or a tautology, but either way, this is one area where the social reality is subjective rather than objective.

[quote]only idiots have tattoos on their face[/quote]
Then how about “people with face tattoos are more likely to be idiots”? If someone has a face tattoo, I can make the heuristic decision that he is an idiot to save time when filtering information.
The thing is that a lot of people would do the same. Anyone with enough intelligence would recognize that and not waste their time to run for a president when all the majority of the voters will automatically discard them based on the tattoos.
So yes, the only people with face tattoos and running for a president are the ones who are too stupid to realize it’s not happening.

BTW, I like how this statement:
[quote]is not only false, but it’s a logical fallacy[/quote]
is followed by an ad hominem in the very next sentence.

That quote actually puts it in better perspective for us though. Here, face tattoos = gang member. Sure, some may be exceptions to this rule, but it’s the association that’s made. It’s like a prison tat for a lifer. In Japan, traditionally, tattoo = yakuza. That practice started from tattooing criminals to mark them apart from society. Sure, there are now legit parlors in Japan and normal people getting them – and it’s uncalled for to fire someone just for having one… of some types… but at the same time it’s a very real practice. It someone has a nice big detailed irezumi tattoo, there’s a good chance they are gangsters and shouldn’t to into public office. Personally, I’m more surprised someone in that line of work even tried getting one given the connotations.

“Hashimoto should know better, being from show business. The days when tattoos were just to intimidate people are gone, now they are a fashionable form of self expression. And this, coming from a lawyer who once shoced people with the fact he had dyed his hair? I understand the need for restraint, but a ban is going too far.”

“Whose side are you on!?”

“I’m on the side which thinks forcing people into conformity is suspect. And not just when it comes to tattoos…”

“You’re the suspect one!”

“No decent person would get a tattoo.”

“That is rather like saying ‘no decent person would post on 2ch,’ now isn’t it?”

You have 2 way to interpret a tattoo there:
a) the person is member of a criminal gang
b) the person is trying to rebel against the norms of the Japanese society

Either way, you won’t get far in a rigid, traditional society such as Japan. Showing off tattoos in Japan, especially where you want to keep a ‘clean’ image (public sector, schools, workers that have customer contact, …) is sort of like walking around with your dick hanging out of your pants in the western world.

OK, I knew Japan were quite anti-tattoos, but this is just… If the tattoo can be covered with clothing, what’s the friggin’ problem? It’s not like everyone with a tattoo is a worshipper of Satan or something.

Tattoos have existed for thousands of years, in various cultures, it’s a form of art, a way of expression. While true that in Japan those with tattoos used to be criminals, but that was how many hundreds of years ago? If they’re so headstrong on keeping to the old they can hand all the western technology they got back.

It was actually no hundreds of years ago. It still happens now. There are legit people with tats now, but yakuza willingly getting tattoos is still quite normal. A large irezumi is still probably yakuza.

In fact it’s only been legal to get one since 1948, and that was because of the occupation forces after WWII.

That said, it should be quite easy to tell the difference between irezumi that takes many sessions to complete and a quick little tattoo that can be done in one or two visits.

Because most people with tattoos are Yakuza. And it doesn’t matter if it’s covered by clothing obviously.
In an ideal world, we could just execute all Yakuza members. But we have things like due process that we want to keep, and as with all organised crime it turns out that necessary components of the justice state get in the way of laying a finger on them.
So we can’t really do anything about them, but at the same time people don’t want to talk to Yakuza when dealing with the government. So banning tattoos is the logical way forward, for now. Until Yakuza stop having tattoos, I don’t know what to do then.

Where I live, younger people don’t vote. When I registered to vote, I was called to jury duty almost instantly. When I re-registered to vote because I moved to a different district, I was also called to jury duty almost instantly. Moved and re-registered another time, it happened again. From my talks with others it seems like this isn’t an uncommon occurrence. Thus people generally don’t vote unless they’re political activists or they have their life together enough that they can deal with the hassle of jury duty (which is often seen as a heavy cost for a privilege, not a responsibility that comes with a right) …and this often isn’t until their 30s or 40s. If ever.

This might not be the same in Japan, as I’m not familiar with their political system, but “younger people not voting” is a big problem over much of the world and has different causes in different places. I suspect that “produce more babies” wouldn’t be nearly as effective as one might think.

Young people around here don’t vote, because it makes no difference. Like this one show I can’t remember illustrated. There the people who they could vote on got killed and replaced by aliens striving to legally enslave mankind. It worked out because in the end they could only vote for aliens.

Blame it on the West. Actually tats were perfectly acceptable as skin art before the Meiji government who in wanting to emulate the West outlawed them making anyone who had one an instant criminal.I don’t know how they got rid of them back then but I bet it hurt a lot!

Western morals (read white) at the time looked down on tats as something criminals and lowlife sailors had. Even though the occupation forces decriminalized tats in 1945 the stigma still stuck. I guess thing change very slowly in Japan.

In Japan tattoo removal still hurts like bad then, as the quacks surgically remove them & burn them off. No serious, sankaku had articles on Japanese quacks performing tattoo removal without the use of lasers.

Doy! Once again, the idiocy goes off the deep end in japan, this time its Osaka’s mayor..over tattoos….I don’t get what’s with these guys, did his high school and college years suck that much for this man to place a ban on people whose rocking tattoos? Apparently so….

macona is talking about a legal perspective and he is right. When you take the oath and sign the papers you give over your individual rights and become part of the group. You belong to them to do as they see fit. The military as an organization would never work otherwise.

No they’re not told to get them it’s more of a culture thing and it’s fully voluntary.
Some soldiers don’t have any tattoos at all.
In fact there are strict rules in the US military as to where a tattoo can be.
No tattoos on the head or neck and no sleeve tattoos.
They must be able remain mostly covered by a standard PT uniform.

This also is the rules for corporate America if it can be covered by a suit not a single fuck is given.

Mortality rate in prison is lower than the average. You are less likely to die in there than on the outside.
Also, while governments have taxes, the mafiaa has “protection money” which is as high as they feel they can get from you. And unlike the government, they will break your legs if you don’t pay in time.

It works like this. Everyone with really, really high income for basically doing nothing at all is a criminal. Now those criminals stick together. What do you get? A government. Or maybe a religion. Or organized crime. Could be a company for all we know. Now those guys don’t exactly like to pick fights with each other, cause that could hurt and there isn’t really any merit in the police doing their job to fight crime anyway. Essentielly, they pretty much all work together. But without being the exact same thing.

The funny thing is, as long as you have that really, really high income your part of the club. Doesn’t matter if you earned it rightfully, because really, no one ever did. Just watch out to not piss off those other members of the club. (Remember how it didn’t work out to ban religion? Or how organized crime is still around? I’m sure you didn’t miss out on the government of your own country, now did you?)

These people are so close minded. I’m outraged at this. Why should it matter if you have a tattoo and why are you instantly considered a bad person simply because of it? That’s extremely harsh judgment don’t you think? I understand people’s irrational fear of people with tattoos are affiliates of yakuza but this has gone way to far. Firing someone over a tattoo? Really?

I agree. This is just stupid. Why the hell would they even vote for an idiot like this guy? And I am honestly surprised at how 2ch is reacting to this. Why would they support some guy who obviously views them as scum?

You seem to have a pretty closed minded view of a culture that isn’t yours don’t you? There are a lot of places and career fields in the the U.S. where you will be kicked to the curb for having a lot of visible tattoos.

How many corporate execs, lawyers, engineers or doctors for that matter do you see with a lot of skin art? The powers that be may not tell you they won’t hire you for your tattoos but you can pretty much figure it out.

There is still a stigma in the West, maybe less than Japan but it’s still there.

Exactly, you don´t see them because they tattoo their back, not their face…
“Ohhh but if they have a tattoo on their face they wont get hired!”. Yes, just like a tattoo artist with no tattoos, who looks like Sheldon Cooper will have a hard time finding a job at a tattoo shop…
It´s a matter of context…

In the US, they will make up other reasons to fire you. If you fire someone because they had a tattoo, you will be eaten alive by your ex-employee’s lawyer.

[quote]How many corporate execs, lawyers, engineers or doctors for that matter do you see with a lot of skin art?[/quote]
You know what else is common among people in prestigious and high paying jobs? Above average intelligence.
I’m not going to claim a relationship between lower intelligence and likelyhood to get a tattoo, but I wouldn’t be surprised if there was one.

Doctors and engineers generally have high intelligence, true, but while most doctors probably don’t have tattoos, in my experience engineers often do (just not ones that are publicly visible).

Corporate execs generally don’t have high intelligence. Aside from the fact that getting such a job is more reliant on family wealth and connections than anything else, the job typically involves making retardedly short-sighted decisions because the stockholders will remove you if you don’t.

Not sure about lawyers in regards to either the tattoo or intelligence department.

I think she’s talking about the conspicuous ones people can have on their faces. You won’t get past the first interview for any decent paying job especially if it’s in the public sector. Young people can often do impulsive things without thinking of the consequence down the road.

It’s how you to refer to a female leader in the Yakuza, at least in manga and the movies. This is the famine analogue of the word “Aniki”. The actual meaning is a respectable way to say “elder sister”, but as with “Aniki”, the meaning has evolved.

“No decent person would tell other people what they can and can’t do with their bodies.” totally agreed.

imo: A tatto is something u wish to have on your skin for various reason:
A) a sort of art (like a white tiger)
B) something you hold dear !!!
C) sign to belonging to a certain group (yakuza for instance)
D) something u can identify urself with (anchor = naval)(in a band = ur slogan)

Im working at a retail (sth. like h&m/c&a). We are prohibited to show tattoos (we can have as much as we want as long we dont show them -> longsleeve or other stuff),HOWEVER that is a company rule!
In reality no one actually cares (the company, nor the customers). Because we have a brain and are able to distinguish .. also we think that a tatton can be something nice/great/beautiful!

and seriously? if u think about it objectivly: … does a tattoo(a picture on ur skin) ALWAYS have something to do with the persons
mindset/attitude/intelligence ???
eventually NO!
dont u ever felt like: having…
ur favourite plant on a part of your body,
ur childs birthday date engraved on yourself,
or some realllly nice looking tree ?

facit: A tattoo itself is NOT bad… just the message the tatto gives someone CAN be bad, BUT it can also be good.

im well aware of japans opionion regarding tattoos (influences by yakuza & other stuff)
i dont blame them… however i wish they stopped fearing and started thinking!

my dad has a tattoo on his arm (an anchor) and when i was a kid i was like “WOOOOOOOOOW *__*”
now im thinking of also getting a tatto drawn on my arm (maybe even an anchor…).
As a sign of respect & because im still “WOW *_*” (thrilled feeling).
Am i dumb now or do i have a bad behavior? u guys dont know me .. u cant tell anything about me from just that.. its just pure ignorance
im most definatly not a criminal

THIS, dear people is called a “prejudice”
THIS, is being an ignorant, since u dont have your OWN opionion because you did not think it thorough …
all you do is adepting other people’s thought, because its “common” or “normal”… did u never question urself WHY it is normal?
it is a very small form of brainwashing

The city does not currently ban employees from having tattoos, a state of affairs which outrages the mayor: “is there any profession apart from civil servant where regular employees can have tattoos?”

Is he trying to troll the world or what?
Where I live federal law breaks state law so he wouldn’t even have a chance to set those rules.
Not only are the japanese ruled my more dump politicians then most of the rest of the world it seems, they also have a more dumb judicial systems as far as I can judge.

“All you American fools who think tattoos are cool, would you elect a president with a tattoo on his face?”
Totally; that is, if I can agree with his political agenda more then with the others. Who the F$%& cares how the guy that makes intelligent politics looks like? You do? Guess that’s harrasment/mobbing/sexist or racist then depending on the region you are at.

It’s a real shame Sankaku decides not to mention the cultural context here, even though I’m sure Artefact is aware of it.

Unlike the Western world, in Japan tattoos aren’t just nice body paintings random idiots put on their body. Tattoos are much rarer there, and are mostly associated with Yakuza, who identify themselves through ornate tattoos over their bodies. Non-Western people in Japan with tattoos on their body are generally Yakuza or other delinquents.

With this in mind, showing off your tattoo to kids is hugely irresponsible – it would be like proudly showing your swastika tattoo to kids over here. You’re free to put it on, but you can’t blame people for judging you based on an association you yourself voluntarily caused.

You might, but the vast majority of voters wouldn’t. I don’t care about what someone looks like, and neither do the people I associate with. However people still largely choose to vote for someone based solely on his religious affiliation regardless of if any of that bleeds over into their politics.

This doesn’t make it right, but I still think in today’s political climate someone with a tattoo on their face would have a hard time getting anywhere politically.

The most dangerous thing you can catch is “Life”. It’s a cross-species affliction and has a 100% mortality rate! There are no known cases where an organism has survived it.
It’s quite frightening, really.

You mean, a lot of people drown in water right?
I mean, think of the Titanic!!! Think of DiCaprio!!!

But seriously, I guess this is one of those extreme cases of cultural differences… Tattoos are pretty much a mark of a lifestyle criminal in Japan, or at least they have been.
But still, sacking people for it is kinda taking it overboard… But then again, Japan is known to be uniformistic(dat a word?). Do anything to separate from the “standard” and you’re getting ostracized.

From someone who comes from a family of doctors you can die from water in-gestation EX.

Water intoxication, also known as water poisoning, is a potentially fatal disturbance in brain functions that results when the normal balance of electrolytes in the body is pushed outside of safe limits (e.g., hyponatremia) by overhydration, i.e., over-consumption of water.

I’m not a big fan of tattoos on women but I had to laugh at that reply myself. The only thing I heard you can get is hepatitis if your dumb enough to have it done in some place with unsterilized equipment or by a friend who doesn’t know what they’re doing.

or maybe it’s because they already have aged, fugly mongoloid faces from day 1, ad nature cannot bring itself to make worse the hideousness of such things for the sake of other more natural looking races.

seriously, are you this ignorant about asians? As far as I have seen and known, they are some of the ugliest old people and age even faster and uglier than any other race on earth. ESPECIALLY THEIR SKIN.

must have hit a sensative subject for anarchists. i simply imply that if they had a document to protect the rights of the people, they wouldn’t be allowed to ban people from civil servant jobs for tattoos. with the current american president, the constitution is just a piece of paper that he doesn’t care about. but when laws are passed that violate the constitution it is taken to the supreme court and is almost always overturned. it takes a while, but justice is usually carried out eventually.

[quote]So when you get done cleaning up your own backyard, then you can get back to me about how terrible the US is and how Europe has the superior dedication to “freedom”.[/quote]
Nobody said anything remotely close to that.

I’m not going to bother with you anymore. Either you are a troll, or you are royally stupid.

[quote]Shock and amazement! Except wait – they say the same thing in the US! And weren’t some EU states complicit in things like renditions and other less-than-savory treatments of suspects? You can SAY a fair trial is guaranteed, doesn’t mean it actually is.[/quote]
Oh really? Enlighten me, when was the last time where an EU member state endorsed such a thing?

[quote]Even if it were true, Europe has its share of other freedom-squashing laws. See how far you get with Nazi imagery in Germany, for example.[/quote]
An archaic law that doesn’t make sense in modern days. It’s hardly comparable to passing anti-constitutional police state-ish laws in the 21st century.

[quote]1) Because in the end, few if any countries actually protect “fundamental human rights” to an absolute degree. Each has its exceptions, some more obvious than others. This is a basic fact that should be plain to anyone actually concerned with those rights.[/quote]
Once again, you are comparing minor gripes to the 200km tall pink elephant standing in the middle of Washington.

[quote]2) It’s no more well-informed or balanced than the doofus talking smack about Japan’s lack of a constitution. It’s as much a “serious claim” as saying the ocean is wet.[/quote]
An uninformed opinion is ignorant. So unless my dictionary is broken, you are not answering the question.

[quote]And make it meaningless (or if you prefer, lacking relevance or importance.[/quote]
Maybe the issue of personal freedom is not important to you. But it’s important to nearly everyone else on the planet.

[quote]Since each country restricts freedom in some way, this statement would imply that there are no differences in the level of freedom from country to country, and you might as well live anywhere, they’re all equally not free.[/quote]
Which has nothing to do with the statement “America is not free”.
This is a fallacy because you imply that lack of known state means a state does not exist. “If nowhere is free, freedom does not exist.”
You should sign up for the Roman Church.

[quote]So-called fundamental freedoms are agreements of politics and society. They only exist so long as everybody agrees to abide by them. There is no supposedly inherent right from being human that cannot be abridged if someone decides to call in the dogs and guns.[/quote]
Nobody is talking about absolute freedom. This is about civil liberties, which are a subset. No shit they are agreed on by society. Who else is going to define them? The tooth fairy?

“The right to a fair trial is a fundamental right and guaranteed in each and every EU member state.”

Shock and amazement! Except wait – they say the same thing in the US! And weren’t some EU states complicit in things like renditions and other less-than-savory treatments of suspects? You can SAY a fair trial is guaranteed, doesn’t mean it actually is.

Even if it were true, Europe has its share of other freedom-squashing laws. See how far you get with Nazi imagery in Germany, for example.

“Accusing an entire country of not protecting fundamental human rights is a very serious claim. What exactly makes it a “dumb-ass statement”?”

1) Because in the end, few if any countries actually protect “fundamental human rights” to an absolute degree. Each has its exceptions, some more obvious than others. This is a basic fact that should be plain to anyone actually concerned with those rights.

2) It’s no more well-informed or balanced than the doofus talking smack about Japan’s lack of a constitution. It’s as much a “serious claim” as saying the ocean is wet.

“”Nowhere is free” does not contradict the original point (“America is not free”). In fact, that would prove it, if true.”

And make it meaningless (or if you prefer, lacking relevance or importance. Your like of ponies has no meaning to anyone besides you and maybe a few other pony-fanciers. In other words: trivial). Oh wow! America isn’t free, and neither is any place else! What a *profound revelation*! Takes me back to my junior-high days!

“Also, freedom is not a quantity. Lack of essential freedoms results in non-freedom, not less freedom.”

Since each country restricts freedom in some way, this statement would imply that there are no differences in the level of freedom from country to country, and you might as well live anywhere, they’re all equally not free.

“Either you are totally free, or you have no way to ensure that your other freedoms cannot be taken away, making them privileges, rather than freedoms.”

Yeah, no shit. Maybe you get the point after all.

So-called fundamental freedoms are agreements of politics and society. They only exist so long as everybody agrees to abide by them. There is no supposedly inherent right from being human that cannot be abridged if someone decides to call in the dogs and guns.

[quote]Because things like the Patriot Act are not unique to the US. What country, these days, does NOT have its own Patriot Act or something like it?[/quote]
Mine. Greetings from Europe. The right to a fair trial is a fundamental right and guaranteed in each and every EU member state. Unlike the USA, shit like “except for alleged terrorists” doesn’t fly here.

[quote]Which is not to say the Patriot Act is great or anything, but “Amerika not free, hur hur” is kind of a dumb-ass statement.[/quote]
Accusing an entire country of not protecting fundamental human rights is a very serious claim. What exactly makes it a “dumb-ass statement”?

[quote]If you can’t come up with an example of a country that is MORE free, then you’re just talking out of your ass.[/quote]
The one talking out of their ass is you. Anon claims that America is not free. Weather other countries are free or not does not make a difference in the original claim.
Also, freedom is not a quantity. Lack of essential freedoms results in non-freedom, not less freedom. Either you are totally free, or you have no way to ensure that your other freedoms cannot be taken away, making them privileges, rather than freedoms.

[quote]If there’s no objective comparison that can be made, then it’s a meaningless statement[/quote]
Bullshit. “I like ponies” is not an objective statement, but it does have a meaning (that I have an affinity for ponies).

[quote]the USA isn’t free, but then NOWHERE is free by that kind of standard[/quote]
“Nowhere is free” does not contradict the original point (“America is not free”). In fact, that would prove it, if true.

[quote]so singling out America is just high-school-grade “rar, authority bad” griping.[/quote]
“America has civil liberty issues” =/= “America is the only country with civil liberty issues”. Nobody is singling it out.

@05:58 So basically you’re avoiding the question. Because things like the Patriot Act are not unique to the US. What country, these days, does NOT have its own Patriot Act or something like it? Ask the Brits and their security cameras. How easy is it to move around in Israel? What’s freedom of expression like in various countries?

Which is not to say the Patriot Act is great or anything, but “Amerika not free, hur hur” is kind of a dumb-ass statement. If you can’t come up with an example of a country that is MORE free, then you’re just talking out of your ass. If there’s no objective comparison that can be made, then it’s a meaningless statement: the USA isn’t free, but then NOWHERE is free by that kind of standard, so singling out America is just high-school-grade “rar, authority bad” griping. And fuck that weak-ass bullshit. Come back when you actually know something about the world. But first give this a negative rating because it hurt your feelings.

[quote]So which country in the world do you see as being “free”?[/quote]
I’ll let the historians of the future decide that. All I can tell you is what is definitely not freedom.

[quote]And what set of rules do they have that would make them every bit as “not free” in their own way as you imply America is?[/quote]
To begin with, indefinite imprisonment and surveillance of citizens without any due process. Basically, this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PATRIOT_act

If you want freedom, die.
If you want to free everyone, than just kill everyone.

People who think like this are called psychopaths, yet I can’t deny that it is a valid argument.

Also, to ask “what country has freedom” is like asking “what prison has freedom”. There isn’t anyone, by definition. But there are prisons were you get fucked in the butt and there are prisons were you can watch TV.